Czerniak

MEMORANDUM *

Duyet Hung Le appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus. The district court found no ex post facto violation in the Oregon Parole Board’s postponement of Le’s release date. On de novo review, Singh v. Ashcroft, 351 F.3d 435, 438 (9th Cir.2003), we affirm.

A statute that is applied 1) retrospectively and 2) operates to the disadvantage of those affected by it implicates the Ex Post Facto Clause of Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution. Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 29-30 , 101 S.Ct. 960 , 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981). Not every law that disadvantages a defendant is a prohibited ex post facto law. In order to violate the clause, the law must essentially alter “the definition of criminal conduct” or increase the “punishment for the crime.” Lynce v. Mathis, 519 U.S. 433, 441-42 , 117 S.Ct. 891 , 137 L.Ed.2d 63 (1997); see also Cal. Dep’t of Corrs. v. Morales, 514 U.S. 499, 504 , 506-07 & n. 3, 115 S.Ct. 1597 , 131 L.Ed.2d 588 (1995).

The 1993 version of Oregon Revised Statutes Section 144.125(3) gives the Board more discretion in postponing parole, making it less likely that the Board will release prisoners. See Meadows v.…